November 18, 2012

... I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer.... [T]he story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality....

The president said, why pick on her? She didn’t know anything about Benghazi. She was the most politically compliant person they could find.... Would this White House mislead the American people about national security events? I think they might simply because when the bin Laden raid occurred, they leaked every detail about the raid....

There are 10 militia groups all over Benghazi. I blame the president for…making this a death trap. I blame the president for not having assets available to help these people for eight hours. We need a select committee not only to look at intelligence failures...

Also in today's MTP transcript: the House and Senate intelligence chairs Congressman Mike Rogers and Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein is clear that on Sept. 14th, David Petraeus said the Benghazi attack was terrorism. Why did Susan Rice say otherwise on Sept. 16th? Rogers says:

The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early. What happened was it worked its way up through the system of the so-called talking points, which everyone refers to, and then it went up to what’s called a deputy’s committee... that’s populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed. And so how that thing got back to Senator Rice, I think, is probably another question.

Feinstein says the White House did not change the talking points (other than to change the word "consulate" to "mission"). Rogers says:

[T]here was no one in the professional intelligence community could tell us who changed what. So that-- there-- there goes the disconnect. So the intelligence community said this is-- this was a terrorist act.

The moderator, David Gregory, says he doesn't get it: "Why not just call it what it was? Who-- why are we protecting?" Feinstein says she doesn't know, and she seems to be really struggling to understand (even though I assume she's trying to protect her party's interests). Gregory asks "was there a cover-up?" And "Do you believe that the president or anybody serving the president deliberately misled the American people about the true nature of this attack for political reasons?" And Feinstein says "no, no." She's the Democrat. The Republican, Rogers, says:

Well, this is what I know. I know the narrative was wrong and the intelligence was right. Now, getting between there and there, I think you have to be careful about making those accusations.... But there were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had.

384 comments:

Yashu, to me this all seems really straightforward. The idea that something is being covered up has never been credibly put forward. McCain's "explanation" today for what might be covered up, was the funniest thing I've seen yet.

If there is something to get all worked up about IMO, it is that we have been drone-pounding the shite out of Libya all this time and putting ourselves in the middle of all that crazyness just waiting to have our people picked off.

But that's not the sort of basic fundamental question I see on this thread. Nor have I seen it on Fox. Nor did I see it from Gregory.

Let's stop with all the god damned militarism. You can't fix crazy. These are lessons I take from Benghazi. And that aligns me with neither party.

We got involved in Libya to facilitate the takeover of another government by Muslim extremists. Just like we did in Eygpt (you know a war is starting there...ssh don't mention it). As is going to happen in Syria. And Turkey. And finally Saudi Arabia.

edutcher - "He's on record as saying the Israelis better not bomb Iran and lost Jewish support in the last election for it.

As to Presidents, any from Ike on, with the probable exceptions of Willie and Jimmah, would support Israel here.

Barry is no Ike."

Actually Eisenhower laid down the law after the Iraelis collaborated with the Brits and French, invading Egypt in a surprise attack. Told the Zionists, Brits, and French to exit, poste haste, or he would wreck their economies. The days of colonialist adventures were over. The Soviets agreed with Ike.Thus ended the 1956 Suez War.

And HW Bush worked like crazy to keep Israel out of the Gulf War because they were more a liability than an asset.

Nor did they help us in Iraq or Afghanistan and we didn't want them either....And getting into Iraq was in part due to Dubya trusting Israeli assurances that they had agents that gave solid links to WMD.

We don't owe them anything, from the recent past or "our WWII failures". The people that elected Obama care nothing about the Fundie Christian Zionist sentiments of "the Republican Base".

We only should get involved in another Neocon war of nation-building and adventure, in our vital interest and only in absolute last ditch extremis. Ours. Not Israel's.

The public will not support a 3rd decades long several trillion dollar war with tens or even 100s of thousands of US casualties - not unless it is a war of necessity to safeguard US lives.

We can still cripple Iran with actions short of war. Then work to make the Middle East a WMD-free zone.

Israel has some 250-300 nukes. They can destroy Iran if Iran begins a war. Mutual assured destruction.The rantings of Ahmedinejad mean little....power rests with the Supreme Leader and the Quds...not him.

I thought the action against Afghanistan was clearly justified as self-defense.

I thought--and I will say now--that once we went into Iraq, we had a moral duty to seek some measure of success if possible.

I was against Bush's election, both times, and I was against most of what he did in the war against terror, including all assaults on the Constitution. I am appalled by the TSA, and even more appalled that too few share my fury.

I applauded Mr. Obama--publicly--when he said he'd get rid of torture. But in the main, he's continued all the depressing features of Bush's National-Security State Apparatus, and made it worse with his "Kill List."

And, folks will remember I was slandered, here, by folks supposedly "on the right," not too far back, because I had the timerity to refuse to support Mr. Romney, for many reasons, including his support for torture and more of the same in the endless war.

I do however think its beyond vile to try to smear a President with whatever nonsense Fox news can conjure up, why?

This is an interesting tactic my leftist friends (?) use when discussions don't go their way. The implication is that, whatever your arguments are, you only 'got them from watching Fox News' and hence are beneath contempt.

Very childish and very annoying, especially when coupled with the faux outrage at 'smearing a President'.

Obama smears and soils himself a-plenty without any help from Fox News. All we have to do is look, at something other than the backs of our own eyelids.

Exactly. That's exactly the kind of political rhetoric that our electorate should punish, and punish severely at the polls.

To see John McCain and Lindsay Graham standing there puffing out with dignity, acting like they are these big authorities even as they have beeen so tragically and stupidly wrong on so much, on foreign policy, over the years. It is just breathtaking that people take those waster of life and limb seriously, in any way, on questions of war and peace. Or on much else.

Here's an example of my "loathing" President Obama, in a homily I gave April 18, 2009:

We are critical of our President on the stem-cell issue; let us praise him on another issue: He made it clear that human dignity demands we never torture. Yes: love is hard—such as loving our enemies. Some things we never do because God’s law—not “national interest”—comes first.

I have criticized him on this forum, several times. I stated before the election for months I wouldnt be voting for him. BUT I won't buy into conspiracy theories cooked up by two old bitter men and Fox news.

He's extended many Bush policies and gone further with warrantless wiretapping, the definition of enemy combatants, and dramatically increased the use of drones. This is how he's fighting the "war on terror."

I think this is in lieu of troops, and a constant low level, potentially escalating use of force, which is maybe what he believes (and the crux of the neoconservative use of force to expand democracy that Bush used and abused, and those neocons are still there getting mugged by reality because there's no shortage of liberals in our country getting mugged by reality). Appearing to kill Bin Laden, and be in control as well as appealing to the peace base is how Obama. Be skeptical of a politician's motives.

His actions and his rhetoric don't match. Libya is his war. On Syria, he didn't use his doctrine.

His doctrine and his worldview which has informed many of his actions are possibly not prepared to accept some harsh realities in the Middle East and developing events:

Most muslims still think lowly of us. There are many, armed, militant people and just bringing moderate Muslims into the international fold and vision doesn't appear to be working. Al Qaida affiliates are operating in Libya. Northern Mali is run by people worse than the Taliban. Al Qaida is coming back in Afpak. He's droning the hell out of Waziristan and Yemen.

At what cost does continuing to invest in this leader and this platform? How much longer do we Americans put our trust in his leadership, and this direction?

We have a National Security Apparatus that tramples the Constitution constantly. Begun under Bush; continued--and even made worse--by Obama. He says he got rid of torture, yet he added the "Kill List."

We have the TSA which is a disgrace to a free people. It habituates both citizens and "law enforcement" to degrading treatment of citizens. Don't kid yourself; the things we allow the TSA to do today--for "national security"--will become wider practices by law enforcement elsewhere--again, for "national security."

And it is in this context that the President's assault on free speech is so outrageous.

Worse is that folks who describe themselves as friends of civil liberties yawn and don't give a d***.

I am only willing to have that conversation about Obama's foreign policy with someone, in depth anyway (for I already have slammed him here to an extent), on the grounds that it applies a very wide net. What is the alternative? A Republican even hungrier to start even more shit on more fronts?

God, I detest Ron Paul. But when he spoke about foreign policy, his voice rang out and inspired people in both parties. Not powerful people. Not profiteers. But people worried about the peeling away of feeling and the wasting of human life. The bravery with which Ron Paul shredded the fuck out of Gingrich in front of millions of people, for being a chickenhawk despoiler of the lifeblood, stunned me. When Ron Paul lifted up his own experience as a veteran for all to see, and then hammered Gingrich, it was an opportunity for us all. Gingrich stood down in that moment.

But we learned nothing from that. One of the reasons is that the people who really own this country are not the rank and file voters.

How is this approach working? Is our bureaucratic structure working to protect our interests and solve problems as they arise?

Is Obama's liberal internationalist goal of bringing Muslim nations into the fold of international law with sticks and carrots working? Is appealing to the Muslim on the street to drive the radicals out working?

Do Muslims even want freedom and democracy as this Western vision claims? Is it really a better alternative than invasion to spread democracy and freedom? What about the rise of Islamism?

Are we all out of ideas and money and where do we go next?

Frankly, we need to change, but I'm tired of the isolationist high water mark here at home. We've got people, good people, and interests all over the globe. If we don't secure our interests and lead, then someone who doesn't share our values will.

Obama's vision is actually deeply Western, more Left and focused on human rights and international law, and it's deeply flawed.

I hope he's able to adapt to events and not just drone the hell out of people and claim he wants peace for the base here at home.

I hear you: McCain's noise on Iran, his temperment, and Sarah Palin drove me away five years ago. I knew Obama would be bad on the economy, but I didn't know he'd be this bad, far Left, and redistributionist. He's yieded some potential benefit overseas (our reputation did suffer under Bush) but I think his vision is not up to the job. I give him a B minus as it's getting too hot for him to handle.

I don't like what I'm hearing out of a lot of the Republican's corner, either.

Bloggers like Ann don't really help the conversation either. She was too worried about figuring out who the "Alpha Male" was, to notice that Ron Paul tapped into something significant and true and decent in the American soul, on foreign policy, during the primaries.

harrogate, it seems to me you're conflating things. In your eagerness to attack your political antagonists (or partisans on the other side), you're overshooting the mark-- and defending a POTUS who has done nothing (in this case) to deserve such a defense.

For one thing, you demand that people asking questions about Benghazi tell you WHAT is being covered up-- and say the burden of proof is on them.

Well, no: the burden (or duty) first of all is on those obligated to provide answers: elected officials who have a duty to provide citizens with an honest (at least basic) account of the circumstances and events involved in a terrorist attack in which Americans were killed.

It's possible to infer there's a cover up without knowing what is being covered up; it's possible to tell someone is lying (or stonewalling) without knowing what the underlying truth is.

Yes, the burden of proof is on a conspiracy theorist who has a positive theory (an account of the underlying "truth") to prove his theory. But you're accusing people of being "conspiracy theorists" who aren't conspiracy theorists. They're people asking questions: noting that this administration has failed to provide answers to very basic questions about what happened on 9/11 (what happened in the White House, not just Libya). People noting flagrant inconsistencies, contradictions, misrepresentations, changing narratives (without explanation) in the administration's (and its surrogates') statements, not to mention deflections, distractions ("how dare you besmirch this damsel's reputation! come at me, you arrant knaves!"), and stonewalling.

You overlook the fact that the White House itself promised it would be conducting an "investigation" into Benghazi. They said they would be providing answers-- and so far, they haven't. NB The answers we're still waiting for are not (just) about what happened in Libya, but about what happened in the White House that day. It takes more than two months to determine what happened in the White House that day?

Asking, expecting, demanding honest answers from the Powers That Be in a democracy doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist or a "hater." It makes you someone who holds politicians, people in power (and yes, that means the politicians who WON), accountable. Defending Obama for his actions and non-actions (before, during, after Benghazi), when Obama himself hasn't provided any adequate account, explanation, defense of them-- I don't know what that makes you.

For another thing, it seems to me you have your own moral/ ethical/ political cause-- to do with American "militarism" in a larger sense-- which in your eyes overshadows (or should overshadow) Benghazi. I respect the sincerity of your views, but again, you're conflating things. Just because in your eyes your cause is "greater," or the object of your outrage is "greater," doesn't invalidate others' concern about Benghazi.

You imply that anyone concerned about what happened in Benghazi is a hypocrite, because they're discussing Benghazi as opposed to the grand total of military deaths in general. Why, you demand, aren't you upset about THAT? These are two different topics-- related, but qualitatively (not just quantitatively) distinct, in fundamental ways. That is not hypocrisy, and the logical fallacy here is yours.

If the president had fought half as hard for whats his name, as he has fought for Rice, the dead ambassador might still be alive.

If you had told me that after 9/11/2001, an American embassy, consulate, phone booth, hut, whatever you want to call it, somewhere in the middle east, would be attacked on a subsequent anniversary, of one of the darkest days on American soil, I would have said... yea I could see that... not a surprise.

And all I needed for that was some common sense.

Some other agenda was at play here... and 4 Americans died because of it.

Well, it's her blog, and I think she does a decent job, but she goes for eyeballs and drama sometimes. She's a chameleon and like the attention, too, but it must be a lot harder than it looks, and I really appreciate what she's created here.

Isolationism has some deep moral thinking behind it, but it's a little nutty in practice. Clearly it hits a deep note for you, so go for it.

Yes, chickelit, I know a lot of people also detested him. But I also know that I was hardly alone in having mixed feeling about him at the same time. I am not the best writer and this is a hard thing to articulate, but I think on foreign policy he did something moving and important, and it moved a lot of people deeply, and yet somehow, the people who dominate out discourse acted like he wasn't even there.

I think there is something wrong with that. Why, after all the bullshit we have been through, is Bill Kristol still considered an "expert" on foreign policy? We have a rigged game.

I voted for Ron Paul in the Ohio primary, but--to be candid--I'm not quite with him on foreign policy. He's a reaction to the extremism of our current overreach, but his is too much of a counter-reaction. There are lots of possible gradations between global empire and fortress America.

OK, let me give it a shot. I strive toward the argumentative attitude that our host, Professor Althouse, generally espouses. You seem to be a bomb-thrower. I've known a lot of priests, and have one in my family, and I know a few Jesuits who are pretty stiff, but I've never known a dick like you who was also a priest.

You don't sound like a priest. I think we've been down this road before.

But in any case, anyone can be a dick. There's a memorable scene in the movie Team America: World Police on that subject.

How do you suppose I manage to pull off the conspiracy to convince so many I'm a priest, when I'm not, as you claim? I mean, I have a blog I've maintained in 2005, I've therein described my activities in three parishes--in real places--and I have had untold numbers of people comment there who know me in real life--as a priest.

But you go ahead, amuse us, won't you, with some explanation for how I pull that off?

Ok, I can go for protecting the national defense and against adventurism, but it depends on how you define adventurism. Great in practice, given human nature, not so much.

Some libertarians I know are eager to get the gov't out of even the national defense in the first place. Lefties like this because they hate the 'military industrial complex" In fact, most lefties I know like liberty, but positive definitions of liberty, equality of outcome, rights vastly beyond what the Constitution lays out and social justice.

They don't seem to realize this mostly leads to less liberty, because of human nature, power, and the long, sad, tale of woe and misery in the wake of progressive ideals. Liberty isn't something that you can just give out (usually by demonizing others), but is best thought of as something people already possess in an unequal, often unjust, world.

This vast expansion of the State is much scarier to me at the moment than other threats to liberty.

"We have a National Security Apparatus that tramples the Constitution constantly. Begun under Bush; continued--and even made worse--by Obama. He says he got rid of torture, yet he added the "Kill List.""

Sorry to correct you Father, but actually one could trace "trampling of the Constitution" re: national security to as far back as Lincoln suspending habeas corpus; or, if you prefer something slightly more contemporaneous, the Sedition Act of 1918; or, more recent still, J. Edgar chasing German spies in 1938 and Soviet spies in 1946 on; as for "apparatus," one not need look any later than the Nation Security Act of 1947, passed by Congress and signed by Harry S Truman.

Bush most certainly did not begin Constitutional infringements because of national security; it is to his discredit he did not (with a hearty assist from Congress) find a more adroit method of addressing security.

But that's government work for you: the skillful use of a scalpel in a trained hand can never be any better than a rusty, dull ax with a broken handle. Dull, simple-minded butchery is what we get, but as the most recent election shows, that's what the people want.

Ironic too, isn't it, that those who consistently demand more expansive, expensive government never realize the very fist place this will always manifest itself is in police and military power.

It is, after all, the only uncontested monopoly of government power - the power to kill.

My:"Nothing like an ad hominem to demonstrate persuasively you have nothing worthwhile to say."

Was a rejoinder to your:

"Has anyone yet emailed Martin Fox that a maniac has his password?

How's that for "idiotic"?

Remember the saying about glass houses?

I think calling me a "maniac" counts as an "ad hominem."

Do you care to pursue something more edifying, or do you now propose to defend your claim that I'm a "maniac," in place of your claim that I've maintained a conspiracy going back seven years to masquerade as a priest?

I was finding a reason for your sloppy, thoughtless cranking about "most men," and suggested your confusion results from an unhappy state directly related to the absence of the very thing you asserted most men were.

I thought you liberals were all about open-mindedness and self-improvement?

She's TOTALLY free, you know? She's so free, she's gonna share it with you, and prove she's free. She's so free she probably knows that you need to be free too, and she knows ideas that will make us all more free. In fact, it's kind of a righteous freedom, that needs to be spread.

Yes, they are adventurists. When McCain zealously supported the Iraq invasion, AND joked about bombing Iran, AND said "We are all Georgians now," and bitched about Obama drawing down the Iraq presence, he systemically negated his right to be taken seriously. These are only a few of many examples.

Lem, didn't say she was entitled to special treatment. I am just pointing out that the people she had needled and mocked typically had berated her beforehand in a manner not dissimilar from what we have witnessed right here in this thread.

It is embarrassing to me to see those windbags on television holding forth on subjects on which they have been shown to be so tragically, so terribly wrong, over and over and over again. That their opinions remain so high profile, they they comport themselves with such dignity before the megaphone of government and big media, embarrasses decency.

Obama learned nothing from Bush's mistakes in Iraq, you must have a concrete plan.

Regardless of what politicians say, Afghanistan and Iraq was about revenge and a sobering effect on the Mideast, but more importantly they straddle Iran.

Ron Paul is a great guy, he's an old school republican isolationist, Fortress America. All we have to do is pretend America is just a really huge Switzerland. Hell, let's do it, any guess who would fill that vacuum. I'm too old to serve and hopefully I'd be dead before WWIII happened.

It's like watching Kristol or Krauthammer strike their "I know this stuff" pose.

What?

I love that pose... and I'm not even watching them that much these days... suddenly, or I should say some time around this Benghazi thing got started, I've been watching CNN and Maddow, figuring that whatever was wrong with Benghazi would be able to figure it out by the way they chose to defend it.

It never fails... they are that predictable.

I also wanted to see their reaction when Romney won... but that shows how much I know.

In 1972 did people say, "Why are you wasting time talking about a third-rate burglary when you could be talking about the disaster that is Nixon's anti-crime policy?"

Some people don't understand--or, perhaps, recognize--the difference between policy disputes and scandals.

"Benghazi" is not about the military budget, or how many troops we should have in Afghanistan, or what we should or shouldn't have done about Khaddafy.

"Benghazi" is about the president's performance as commander-in-chief in this particular instance, in which a US ambassador was killed. What did the president know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it? The first, most obvious question is, Why did his surrogates misrepresent the basic events for so long? The answer to that question has potential implications for the others.

No Tim it is not a matter of just "disagreement." They are blood soaked motherfuckers compared to which, laughably, Obama is a lover of peace.

In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country. Who think about the implications of a term like "collateral damage." Who are troubled by all the deaths and all the despair that our foreign policy brings about.

When Romney took "umbrage" and said "we don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries" he was not just lying, he was engaging in a level of indifference to massive deaths that I cannot simply respond to as "disagreement" or "opinion."

I am sick of all these politicians saying they "long for peace." Where is the evidence that they do? Obama with his drone, what have they accomplished on the side of humanity, on the side of decency?

It sure would be nice to see all this power and wealth leveraged towards those types of goals, for a change. But assholes like Krauthammer say we are taking a "holiday from history" when we are not neck deep in gore.

We have a rigged game. We are dominated by two political parties that serve many interests, none of which involve taking seriously the lives of our soldiers and the peoples of other nations.

Economics drive our militaristic choices. And it is a kind of economics that is far, far beyond the scope of the rank and file voter.

Fr Martin Fox said...Here's an example of my "loathing" President Obama, in a homily I gave April 18, 2009:

We are critical of our President on the stem-cell issue; let us praise him on another issue: He made it clear that human dignity demands we never torture. Yes: love is hard—such as loving our enemies. Some things we never do because God’s law—not “national interest”—comes first.

=================Intantile religious drivel. And the sort of "love thy enemy" Milksop Christianity the Islamoids tore right through before being stopped by Goth barbarians at Tours. And held up by nominally Christian Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire sorts that didn't lie down like lambs. We would nuke whole cities of little lambs if we had to. Did it before. Yet there is some "Gods Law" against interrogating a couple enemy combatant leaders vs. no "God's Law" against turning 100,000 enemy non-combatants to radioactive cinders??

But then again, so is it embarrassing to witness the spectacle of consistent adventurists like Graham and McCain and Althouse bitching about Benghazi.

You do realize this fits the classic definition of "ad hominem" argument? (Which these days many reduce to a shorthand for "insult," but that's only a subset of the category.)

You (and other Obama admin defenders) focus exclusively on the character of the particular individuals asking questions about Benghazi-- as if that by itself invalidates the questions themselves. Lots of ridicule from you and garage etc. on Benghazi threads about McCain or Graham (or Kristol or Krauthammer etc.)-- as opposed to the substance of their questions and statements. McCain is an "adventurist" (or an idiot who did not attend an Ivy League school, or an old white male, or someone with different foreign policy views than you), therefore anything he says or any questions he asks of the admin on Benghazi, can be discounted or ignored out of hand.

No need for the admin (you know, the people in POWER) to answer questions from people you or they disapprove of. Good thing that (as you and "everyone" knows, and Obama goes out of his way to remind America), Republicans are such terrible people! You know, awful sexist misogynist ogres who dare to "besmirch the reputations" of dear innocent damsels in distress, like Princess Rice!

It's very convenient.

Because then, I guess, no criticisms or questions, no arguments or objections against Obama, his administrations or his surrogates, need be taken seriously. Look from whence those criticisms, questions, arguments, objections come. Focus on who's speaking, not on what they're saying. "Bad" people!

If the "good" MSM (i.e. apart from evil Faux News) and Democrats aren't saying it, obviously there's "no there there." There's no such thing as "speaking to truth to power" if you have a political/ ideological affinity for those in power, and a political/ ideological antagonism for those speaking.

You know what: you can dislike or reproach the person saying something, and still recognize the possible substance or validity of the particular point they're making. In fact, this ability is essential to being an independent and informed citizen (as opposed to Party sheeple all too susceptible to peer pressure and propaganda from "your side"-- swallowing anything and everything Obama says or does, because the only people opposing him, given an extraordinarily biased and feckless MSM, are loathsome-- to you-- Republicans).

Wake up. You can hate Republicans AND find things to reproach Obama for, too. Or at least, have some interest in the TRUTH. Honestly, really, honestly, looking at all the known facts: do you think Obama has been honest about Benghazi? Forget about Republicans-- has he been honest with YOU as an American citizen?

Don't you realize, YOU guys are the marks. ("We" have long since doubted much of what Obama says.) But maybe you don't care, because look over there! At those awful Republicans.

Anyone who says this wasn't a terrorist attack is either idiotic or mendacious.

The dirty secret here that the Obama Administration hasn't told us is that this really was an attempt to KIDNAP Ambassador Stevens, not kill him (at least not initially). What kind of propaganda could al Qaeda have come up with if they had a captured American ambassador to poke and prod on video? What would they have demanded from us as the price of his freedom? Freeing all al Qaeda operatives in Gitmo or other facilities? Failing that, continued return of Stevens as a series of increasingly bloody body parts? Anyone doubt that Obama would have negotiated with them?

I feel for Stevens and the others who were killed. Those men deserved better from the country and the Administration who sent them there and then abandoned them to their fate. We should have had the resources on the ground to discourage such an attack or to withstand it successfully. That we didn't is a blight on Obama's record, and his reputation as such. That Stevens was killed instead of captured was the only lucky break that Obama caught.

In some discussions with my friends, I've remarked about how amazing it is that there is no concern for the appearance of impropriety on the part of Obama. For instance, his executive orders, his protection of holder in fast and furious, his web-site that allowed donations from anywhere (proven), and now, the fact that he deceived the American people, his press secretary deceived the American people, and somehow this Rice chick put her reputation, and more importantly the reputation of her office on the line, to lie to the American people, and in fact the world.

It should not matter what party you are in, your belief in the objectives of Obama, etc. But it is a circus.

Well, I suppose that is going to be the reputation of Democrats in the history books (provided they do not rewrite history). We are proud to have elected an alleged rapist. We are proud to have made out Monica Lewinski as a stalker, instead of Bill Clinton's willingness to participate.

I'm no fan of Republicans either. I can list off the crimes against the middle class.

I've long felt there's a Twilight Zone quality to life during Obama's administration. Looking around you, at what other citizens-- including the MSM-- are failing to perceive or react to, against all realistic expectations. It's like the ordinary rules, conventions, expectations, duties of politics and governance and journalism are all suspended under Obama. It's creepy and vertiginous. He gets away with anything and everything.

It will be *very* interesting to see how historians in the future analyze and depict Obama's administration.

I think in their heart of hearts, they know that Obama is a failure as president. And many I suspect don't even like him.

I think this is true of many, including quite a few (not just FOX) MSM journalists. Even while most still shill(ed), apologiz(ed), rationaliz(ed) for Obama.

They're well aware, from their own experience and what other journalists (like Bob Woodward) observed and reported, that the competence of the present White House administration is... not optimal.

I honestly believe many Democrats (including some journalists) would have been relieved to see Romney elected. Even if they didn't vote for him (because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Republican).

Yes, exactly. That's what I meant by the "Twilight Zone" thing-- it's an eerie experience.

But your metaphor better captures some of the cynical political stratagems involved here. It fits the Obama campaign's purpose to drive its opponents crazy and make them look "crazy." (Even on this thread, some insist anyone troubled about Benghazi-- like Fast and Furious before it, etc.-- are merely suffering from some sort of hallucinatory projection.)

Especially with the collusion of the MSM. They're like the Angela Lansbury character in the movie.

Thanks, Chip. You know, you (and the other Chip, two awesome Chips) and chickelit are among my very favorite commenters at Althouse.

Heh, I have a vague list of favorites in my mind, but I'd never specify explicitly, because it would be too hard to do so and in a way I love all the Althouse commenters. (OK shoutout to William too, because he rarely gets his due.) But you're in the very very top percentile. Definitely a reason to come back (even after an extremely depressing election when I'm seeking to psychologically detach myself from politics, and to some extent have-- maybe to my benefit).

Although my logorrhea on this thread is not great evidence of detachment, is it.

This thread has, imo, degenerated into name calling among other things. Seems to me that we might have had a productive discussion on precisely what American foreign poliy ought to be. What precisely is our national interest and how do we achieve it. That element seems to be lacking amidst of name calling.My thought is this: American foreign policy is not going to change the more radical elements of islam who are quite willing to blow themselves up in pursuit of their goals. Do we then need to maintain a presence in the ME? Should we work toward "regime change?" At what cost. There are quite a few questions that need to be addressed in terms of a foreign policy.

Obama Doctrine: "Proxy war on Israel via support of Islamic terrorists?"

I probably should use the democrat term for "Islamic terrorists" which is "freedom fighters who just happen to be killing the empire building neo-cons and zionist jews" (please reference Obama's pastor, and Micheal Moore and other liberals for more information).

It just seems like the natural end result of supporting terrorist like Al Queda in Libya and Syria, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the Palestinian terrorists. It would fit into an Obama worldview via a liberal education + Rev. Wright indoctrination over the years Obama listened to him.

Well, Maureen Dowd has thrown Rice under the Obama bus:"An Africa expert, Rice should have realized that when a gang showed up with R.P.G.’s and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was not anger over a movie. She should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily Hillary was avoiding the talk shows."

So, even the really, really, really smart diplomat lied about what was going on and helped hype a false story about a video, to suppress first amendment liberties with threats, not just for a parole violator, but to chill speaking up by all citizens...

Everyone who has paid attention to this knows what happened here, or close enough. There are only this many comments because we have some leftist Dem supporters who view this as their role in life (supporting Mr. Wonderful no matter what).

It's too late now for the media. The election is over. Who cares what the talking heads say now. The 95% of voters who don't pay attention, who couldn't name one Sup Ct. Justice, or their own congressman, are off living their lives, talking on their Obamaphones, spending their food stamps, la la la.

That the Administration would surely want to have the news coverage of that arrest broadcast especially in places where it was trying so desperately to convince mobs that it valued their feelings more than said parole-violator's free speech...

Why, that, too, is certainly coincidental!

After all, why shouldn't we all be so devotedly trusting of Mr. Obama, as Inga and others are? Why should we ever be fearful of government misusing its powers?

Inga is even hypocritical on the whole "speaking truth to power" theme we heard endlessly in the good old Bush days.But she says this is something Fox dredges up. Rather, I would say this is something most in the media simply ignored. Certainly before the election. The Time said they weren't going to report on it as it might impact the election. Would they hold back if it were George Bush having an embassy destroyed and an ambassador killed or would it be "See, we told you that he was an idiot!" Timed RIGHT before an election no doubt for maximum damage. The Time had no problem leaking actual hidden programs that we were using to fight Al Qaeda. And if they could have done so right before an election, all the better.

So, Fox news is not the villain here. IT's the media ignoring the story.

What is the story? Well, we had an ambassador killed. This hasn't happened in 30 years. We had an embassy destroyed.And there are many ways in which the administration is POTENTIALLY culpable when I say potentially it's because there are questions that don't have sufficient answers or make the administration look bad. That is typically when the media steps in and asks those questions of the administration, NOT CARRY THE WATER OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

The first question - why did they ignore the requests for more security. Who said no and why? THere might be a reasonable explanation, but considering we lost an ambassador, its probably an example of terrible policy decision. Especially considering the same embassy had already been attacked twice.

Secondly. We knew about the attack AS it was happening. One of the people killed was apparently told to stand down, and defied direct orders and instead went to help. Why was there an order to stand down? Considering the attack took several hours, why wasn't resources deployed to deal with the attack or to protect the embassy. It could be possible that somehow resources coudlnt' get there in time. But considering how it played out, that's something we need to find out. What resources were avaiable. How long would it take to get there and why wasn't those resources deployed. What it looks like is this administration sat on its hands rather than protect the embassy.Third, why did the administration change its talking points to downplay the CIA assessment that it was al Al Qaeda and instead went out of its way to blame it on a video, sending all of its surrogates out on tv saying that it seemed to be because of a video (despite YOU Inga trying to suggest taht no Obama called it a terrorist attack the whole time). Why did this happen? My own guess is , it was an election year, the election was a few months away. Obama had said that Al Qaeda was on the run and that the Libya policy was successful, so when faced with an apparent Al Qaeda attack didn't want his policy to be considered a failure so close to the election (because then Romney and others would say his foreign policy was even more of a disaster). So he soft pedaled it. Another possibility, and one more negative is that after ignorning the calls for security and having an embassy fall he didn't want to, on the eve of the election, have to defend why more security wasn't given, and so suggested it was because of an impromptu attack. (if it's impromptu, you're not culpable because "it just happened out of the blue". If it was planned then he is because the embassy said there was a lot of terrorist activity and yet the administration ignored repeated requests to provide extra security).Whatever the rationale at this point, because these questions are raised it is incumbent on the administration to provide answers. And republicans asking questions does not mean that it's automatically a smear. You should be demanding answers as well considering this is the first time in 30 years that we had an ambassador killed. It's not a minor thing. You don't just get to sweep it under the rug and blame Fox News.

I can barely comment on this "debate" or discussion. From day two, 9/12/2012, based upon 1.) personal experience and 2.) divergent new reports, I knew it was a terrorist attack. Early on 9/12/2012 I spoke to several Arab Muslim friends friends, all who said "what video?" They knew. I knew. Period.

All the rest since then has been a prevarication extraordinare. Who Petraeus was diddling is of no significance. What Susan Rice was prompted to say is meaningless, because it was not true and anyone with any experience knew it was not true.

What saddens me is that it takes all this palaver to determine the obvious. That is sad for our country...our inability to be honest without ourselves.

The lively and honest conservative & liberal discussions of the 60's college campuses, my time there, cannot occur today...the progressive shouting is too loud. We had some screamers then, today they predominate. The rest of us from that era are nothing but old white guys and old black guys no longer heard.

Aridog said... I can barely comment on this "debate" or discussion. From day two, 9/12/2012, based upon 1.) personal experience and 2.) divergent new reports, I knew it was a terrorist attack. Early on 9/12/2012 I spoke to several Arab Muslim friends friends, all who said "what video?" They knew. I knew. Period.

All the rest since then has been a prevarication extraordinare. Who Petraeus was diddling is of no significance. What Susan Rice was prompted to say is meaningless, because it was not true and anyone with any experience knew it was not true.

"In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country. Who think about the implications of a term like "collateral damage." Who are troubled by all the deaths and all the despair that our foreign policy brings about.

When Romney took "umbrage" and said "we don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries" he was not just lying, he was engaging in a level of indifference to massive deaths that I cannot simply respond to as "disagreement" or "opinion."

I am sick of all these politicians saying they "long for peace." Where is the evidence that they do? Obama with his drone, what have they accomplished on the side of humanity, on the side of decency?"

Your naivete would be stunning, but given you are an Obama voter, it is expected.

@harrogate,you said:In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country. Who think about the implications of a term like "collateral damage." Who are troubled by all the deaths and all the despair that our foreign policy brings about.

So freeing 26 million people from a dictator is a bad thing?

Ending the use of rape as a punishment is not a worthwhile goal?

Ensuring someone cannot use poison gas to murder whole villages for no reason other than ethnicity is something the US should never do under any circumstances?

There is no national interest in ending the state sponsorship of terrorism?

It is perfectly peachy for people to fed feet first into wood-chippers?

There should be no penalty for someone who tortures athletes to death for no crime greater than failing to win a gold medal?

If a despot murders so many children as to have multiple mass graves for them, it doesn't help anyone to topple that individual?

You are willfully ignoring why we invaded Iraq.

Which is fine. But you can't ignore the reasons we did it, and then claim Bush was a warmonger or didn't respect/honor the military.

Do you know anyone in the military? The vast, overwhelming majority of people who spent time in Iraq knew why were there, and overwhelmingly supported the mission. We didn't always like the strategy by which the mission was accomplished, but we believed in what we were doing.

The only way to make the 4000 military deaths wasted is to cut and run, and abandon all the gains.

Which is what Obama did.

So if there is a person in this thread who is disrespecting the military, it is you. And maybe Inga, because she undermines her daughter's chosen profession, but certainly you.

Do you hate the fire chiefs and mayors of cities for their "blood-soaked" fire departments because some die fighting fires?

The military exists, and military join up, because we are prepared to give our life in the fulfillment of operations that benefit the US. That's what the invasion of Iraq was, even if you refuse to acknowledge the plain facts staring you in the face.